Evolution

Evolution Fact or Fiction

Some say fact, some say fiction and some say science or religion, but I’m of the opinion that it’s a little bit of each, mixed together and made to sound like an absolute. I tend to think of Science and Evolution like rat poisoning, a little bit of poisoning mixed together with good tasting stuff, so the rats will eat it, but deadly just the same.Perhaps Webster is correct, perhaps it’s a religion.

Webster says a belief is something that is accepted to be true, such as a religion or a political view. Since the Biblical account of creation, in which God speaks the world into creation, cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, it is considered a religious belief. If it could be repeated in a laboratory then it would be a scientific fact, not a religious belief.

In contrast to Creationism the Evolutionist says in the beginning there was a Big Bang, an explosion, then from that came the universe. Since it is impossible to recreate that Big Bang in a laboratory, it must be a belief system. And if it’s a belief system then it’s a religion. And if that’s the case, it must be kept a secret, because if it ever got out that Evolution was a religion, grant money might stop flowing into the study of it. As the old saying goes, “follow the money.”

DID YOUR MOTHER EVER TELL YOU THIS STORY?A long, long, long, long, looooong time ago there was a beautiful princess, and she found this ugly frog, but when she kissed the frog, it turned into a beautiful prince.

Now, let me change the story just a little bit: a long, long, long, looooong time ago there was a tadpole, and one day he wiggled his way out of the muddy water and then he turned into a handsome prince. Some people call that science; I call it a fairytale. The only difference, in my opinion, was the kiss changed into time.

Any time someone tells you a long, long, long, looooong time ago, billions of years ago, get ready for a fairytale.Listen to Professor Louis Bounoure, he says,”Evolution is a fairy-tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science, it is useless.” (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, France)

EVEN THOUGH SCIENCE HAS ITS GOOD POINTS, IT ADVANCES LARGELY IN PART BY CORRECTING ERROR

For example, there was a time when scientist convinced 99% of the population that the earth was flat.

What often is reported as true in science is later proven to be untrue. But instead of being shouted from the housetops by the media it is reported in a 2 inch square on the back page and the scientific world sweeps it under the rug, or mingles it with something else to draw attention away from the lie. I am sure you have heard of THE MISSING LINK? if man is a million years old as Evolution’s claim there should be THOUSANDS Perhaps TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MISSING LINKS NOT JUST ONE MISSING LINK. Where is the beef?

Darwin, the father of Evolution, visited the island of Galapagos and studied the habitat, as I am sure you’re aware.Keep in mind, natural man, lives in the Third Dimension and lives by his five senses. He absorbs stimuli from the five senses, the things he smells, feels, hears, taste’s and sees. Darwin studied his subjects with the only tools he had, the five senses, and when the five senses reached its climax, the only thing left for any man to do is to make an educated guess, based upon the stimuli which he received.

So Darwin educated himself with his five senses and then made an enormous assumption, a blind leap of faith, not science, and said man must have come from animals. Since that time the scientific world has been doing the same thing, but remember, if it can’t be reproduced in a laboratory, it’s not true science, it’s a belief system.I will gladly give $100,000 to any scientist who can turn a frog into a human in a laboratory. Therefore my friend, it is not science, it is a theory and a hypotheses.

So, rather than admit that they are wrong and give up all of that grant money, many will say things like, “we are looking for the missing link.”

I know you’ve heard of the Colonel’s Chicken from Kentucky. But I bet you’ve never heard of the Piltdown Chicken from China. It was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved that birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999, a fossil smuggled out of China, allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage, was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the Society’s November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the Hominid skull with an ape jaw, discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the Piltdown Chicken turned out to be another hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater’s tail. But even though it was fake science, it was published as being factual and true. Just remember, science advances largely, in part, by correcting error. They just forget to tell everybody about their many errors.

The Scopes Trial and Hesperopithecus: If you research the information available about the Scopes Trial, I have no doubt you will come to the same conclusion as most normal intelligent people. Simply put, it was joke. Scientists from the United States collaborated with scientists in other parts of the world to, intentionally, deceive people into accepting their theory; that man descended from animals, as being fact. They attempted to do this by presenting false information that they themselves created. As the Ancient Scrolls say, “There is nothing new under the sun.” When money and power are involved, men will stoop to new lows to possess it. The following is a small synopsis of the famous tooth:

In 1917, Nebraska geologist and rancher, Harold Cook, found a fossilized tooth of a kind he had not seen before. He hung on to the specimen for five years before sending it to paleontologist, Henry Fairfield Osborn, long time President of the American Museum of Natural History.

After examination, Osborn wrote to Cook, “The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: ‘It looks one hundred percent anthropoid. I then took the tooth into paleontologist, Doctor William Matthew’s room and we have been comparing it with all the books, all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar tooth of some higher Primate, but distinct from anything hitherto described.”

Osborn named the animal it came from, Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii. Colleagues of Osborn’s agreed that Cook had discovered North America’s first anthropoid ape. It was believed to come from the Pliocene Epoch, about 2.6 million to 5.3 million years ago.

During the summers of 1925 and 1926, researchers went back to the site where Cook had found the tooth. The digs uncovered more skeletal remains, but they didn’t look very ape-like. That’s because they came from a pig; https://owlcation.com/stem/Nebraska-Man-or-a-Pigs-Tooth

Radiometric Dating or Radioactive Dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. It is how the scientific world determined that the Pliocene Epoch was between 2.6 and 5.3 million years old. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay. The use of Radiometric Dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of fossilized life forms or the age of the Earth itself, and can also be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.

How Do We Know The Ages Of Fossils And Fossil-Bearing Rocks?

Scientists combine several well-tested techniques to find out the ages of fossils. The most important are Relative Dating, and Radiometric Dating.

Relative Dating. Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks that formed when eroded sediments piled up in low-lying places such as river floodplains, lake bottoms or ocean floors. Sedimentary rock typically is layered, with the layers derived from different periods of sediment accumulation. Almost any place where the forces of erosion – or road crews – have carved through sedimentary rock is a good place to look for rock layers stacked up in the exposed rock face.

When you look at a layer cake, you know that the layer at the bottom was the first one the baker put on the plate, and the upper ones were added later. In the same way, geologists figure out the relative ages of fossils and sedimentary rock layers; rock layers, and the fossils they contain, toward the bottom of a stack of sediments are older than those found higher in the stack.

Radiometric Dating. Until the middle of the last century, “older” or “younger” was the best scientists could do when assigning ages to fossils. There was no way to calculate an “absolute” age (in years) for any fossil or rock layer. But after scientists learned that the nuclear decay of radioactive elements takes place at a predictable rate, they realized that the traces of radioactive elements present in certain types of rock, such as hardened lava and tuff (formed from compacted volcanic ash), could be analyzed chemically to determine the ages, in years, of those rocks.

Putting Relative and Radiometric Dating Together. Once it was possible to measure the ages of volcanic layers in a stack of sedimentary rock, the entire sequence could be pinned to the absolute time scale. In the Wyoming landscape for example, a gray ash layer was found to be 73 million years old. This means that fossils in rock layers below the tuff are older than 73 million years, and those above the tuff are younger. Fossils found embedded within the ash would be the same age as the ash: 73 million years old.

The Problem With Radiometric Dating“A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago!” Antarctic Journal Vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 p. 211“One part of the Vollosovitch Mammoth was carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000” Troy Pewe Geological Survey Professional Pager 862

“Shells from living snails were dated as being 27,000 years old.” Science Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58

“The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek Mammoth was dated at an age of 15,380 RCY while its skin and flesh were 1,300 RCY Harold Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze” Natural History, Sept. 1948, p. 300So the age of the fossil must be determined by the age of the rock that it is found in and the age of the rock must be determined by the age of the fossils that are found in the rocks.

Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? The divine system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juices(stomach, intestines, etc.)? The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA to the different parts of the cell? The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, our muscles to move the bones? The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? The immune system or the need for? There are many thousands of examples that defy an evolutionary explanation.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, how could any of these evolve through evolution?

Is there not one clear prediction of macroevolution that is proven true?

Western Journal Liberty

Baby animals are, as a general rule, adorable. Their heads are too big for their bodies, they don’t know much about the world yet, and they have an amazing amount of energy and zest for life. That’s no different for elephants, who — rare as they may be — are intelligent and inquisitive creatures that are…
The post Video: Excited Baby Elephant Is the Cutest Thing You’ll See All Day appeared first on Liftable. […]